wizards vs. sorcerers

[The Sigil]

b) I NEVER liked the idea of spellslots and memorizing spells. How come that people who have spent years (and decenia and more) of study in perfectin and understanding and learning these spells forget them and have to re-memorise them once cast?? That casting spells expends energy and that this energy must be recharged every once in a while, I totaly agree, but memorising a spell over and over again, I definetly don't like that concept.

Lots of people locked into the 1e/2e mentality here.

Wizards do not memorize spells. They PREPARE them.

Think of it as follows:

When the Wizard wakes up in the morning and PREPARES his spells, he is coding up the spells into a magical matrix around himself. When a spell is discharged, it is "fired" from the matrix - and therefore gone from that matrix (which is why he can't throw another one if that was the only one he prepared).

It's not that the wizard can't remember the spell, he simply hasn't properly aligned the energies needed to fire it off again. The need for spellbooks IMO represents the enormous complexity involved in properly aligning and preparing a spell - a wizard, unlike a sorcerer (who does things by "feel") has to do things by rote - incredibly complex rote.

Think of it as incredibly complex mathematical integrals - figuring them out takes so fricking long (days to months researching a spell) that it can't be done "on the fly." The wizard has to look in his "table of integrals" (or use Mathematica LOL) instead. It means once he gets the answer (researches the spell) he has it in his spellbook (writing the solution) but it doesn't mean he can derive it from first principles any faster. It's the same philosophy I was taught in my college physics courses - "with the really hard stuff, we don't expect you to derive them from scratch every time - we expect you to know where to go to look up the answer."

By extension, the sorcerer is the savant who is exceedingly good at a certain type of integral (say, integrals on spherical coordinates where the radius is some power of 7) and can spit out the answer (align the energy) almost instantly - but take him out of his savant area (spells known) and he can't figure it out from first principles (add to his spells known list by research) because he lacks the proper training.

I could go on, but I have to go to lunch. My point is that anyone who says, "I don't like wizards because it's unrealistic that they forget spells" hasn't updated his process to 3e.

--The Sigil

 

[Olive]

I could go on, but I have to go to lunch. My point is that anyone who says, "I don't like wizards because it's unrealistic that they forget spells" hasn't updated his process to 3e.

--The Sigil

not to mention fo course that its magic... realism isn't so much a part of the equation...

 

[Baumi]

@ The Sigil:

What is so great about a Staff?

You only have 50 Charges like on Wands but you have to share this Charges with 2 or more Spells....

Wouldn't it be simply better to build 2 Wands??

 

[Victim]

Wands only work on 4th level or lower spells. If you want 50 Meteor Swarms or Time Stops in a pinch, you need staves, or lots of scrolls, or an unlimited use Wonderous item that would cost more money than you have.

 

[Bonedagger]

I think that the only reason psionics made it into the game in the first place was because many people felt that something was missing from spellcasting. That also mean that if you could find the right balance between sorcerers, psionics and wizards people would be satisfied with just one type of arcane spellcaster.

If anybody wanted a more scientific feel or have a fighter-wizard type that could be handled by multiclassing or taking a prestige class.

(I'm not giving up on this subject. )

The slotsystem have always been inferior to a "mana" system IMO.

 

[The Sigil]

What is so great about a Staff?

1.) As has already been mentioned - Level Cap - you can't fire high-level spells from a wand.

2.) Creating multiple wands is more expensive than creating a single staff (granted, you get fewer total charges). This is because the second spell added to a staff is added at 3/4 price and the third and subsequent spells are added at 1/2 price. Thus, creating a staff to throw a 10d6 fireball or lightning bolt (your choice) will run you 19,687.5 gp. Creating two wands runs you 22,500 gp (granted, you get twice as many total charges, but that's a price you pay for flexibility - see below).

3.) If you need to create something "on the cheap" you can make staff spells draw two charges instead of one. If you only need the staff for a one-shot adventure, maybe you only need 25 uses instead of 50. You can thereby halve your cost (the above staff with fireballs and lightning bolts costing 2 charges a pop runs just under 10,000 gp). This gives you some flexibilty when creating the item in that you can set how many "uses" you need and can thereby control costs some.

4.) The other big reason (aside from #1) is flexibility. You just don't have as much "speed" getting out the "right tool for the job" with wands... With a staff you have all your "spells" ready in your hand at once. With a set of wands, you have to grab the right one - which will cost you at least standard action (or a Quick Draw Feat, if your DM allows it, but that's another Feat you've had to burn). Not a problem with just two wands... but a big problem with 3 or more. And remember, the staff I quoted in the above post "knows" 24 spells (10th level or 29 spells for the 12th level sorcerer). Do you really want to fumble with 24 wands, trying to find the right one, or would you rather just use one big ol' swiss army knife where you're guaranteed to have the right one "in hand" immediately?

Charge for charge, wands are cheaper - but the utility of a wizard's staff is stupendous (not to mention that you can enchant it and use it as a weapon - and, if you're using the Arcane Nexus or Wizard's Staff rules from Quint Wizard or Path of Magic, the staff becomes an even more useful tool).

My high-level wizards like to travel with quarterstaffs that have been ensorcelled to be:
1.) A virtual sorcerer, as above
2.) Have +5/+5 enhancement bonuses, preferably with energy burst damage (sonic and acid are popular choices) and have the defending property (wizards always need AC bonuses).
3.) Are intelligent items
4.) Are "marked up" as an Arcane Nexus per the Quint Wizard
5.) Are "marked up" as a Wizard's Staff per Path of Magic

...and will soon be changing #3 to...
3.) are intelligent items that gain levels per Monte's Rules in BoEM3.

Does it tie a lot of power up in the staff? Absolutely. Is it worth it? I think so - it gives the wizard unparallelled flexibility, both tactical and strategic.

Again, I submit to you my wizard's creed:

"Staff. Don't leave home without it."

--The Sigil

 

[Poltergeist]

Still gonna need the 8 hours of undisturbed rest and the short amount of prep time after that to "refill" your spell slots.

Sorcerers do not require 8 hours of rest nor prep time to refill spell slots. Rest is a requirement for the wizard.

 

[The Sigil]

The slotsystem have always been inferior to a "mana" system IMO.

You are perfectly welcome to your opinion. I have played "slot" systems and "mana" systems. And IMO, "mana" systems or "spell point" systems are, not to put too fine a point on it, the singular WORST choice for magic systems.

Why?

They're WAY too easy to "twink." Even a non-twink rarely uses his 5 spell-point spells once he gets his 10 spell-point spells. He rarely uses his 10-spell-point spells once he gets his 15-spell-point spells, and so on.

IOW, the problem is not that the mage gets new tools - he should. The problem is that the mage is constantly casting his old tools aside, as it were, for new ones. You don't see mages with scads of spell points resorting to "low-cost" spells - because their "more expensive" spells are flat-out better and there's no reason to conserve spell points - you can just cast a ton of high-level spells. It tends to encourage overkill - the mage meteor swarms everything in sight, when a simple magic missile would be more than sufficient. Yes, I drive a car, but that doesn't mean I stop walking in some places. I hope my point is clear here, I seem to be rambling.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

Sorcerers do not require 8 hours of rest nor prep time to refill spell slots. Rest is a requirement for the wizard.

How then, do they refill their spells? You're wrong here, unfortunately.

From the SRD, under the "Arcane spellcasters who are not Wizards (i.e., Sorcerer and Bard)", emphasis mine:

Daily Readying of Spells: Each day, these characters must focus their minds on the task of casting their spells. The character needs 8 hours of rest (just like a wizard), after which he spends 15 minutes concentrating. A bard must sing or play an instrument of some kind while concentrating. During this period, the character readies his mind to cast his daily allotment of spells. Without such a period to refresh himself, the character does not regain the spell slots he used up the day before.

Recent Casting Limit: As with wizards, any spells cast within the last 8 hours count against the character's daily limit.

Sorcerers require the same rest (8 hours) that wizards do, though their prep time is a bit less (15 minutes vs. 1 hour).

--The Sigil

 

[Victim]

Sorcerers do not require 8 hours of rest nor prep time to refill spell slots. Rest is a requirement for the wizard.

Wrong. PHB 156:

Each day, sorcerers and bards must focus their minds on the task of casting their spells. A sorcerer or bard needs 8 hours of rest (just like a wizard), afterwhich he spends 15 minutes concentrating. . . . Without such a period to refresh himself, the character does not regain the spell slots he used up the day before.

Curse you Sigil, and your speedy use of the SRD.